"But wait, there's more!The first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, a mere three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that, “...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens..."
Unless you can find another, I believe it is the only US statute ever to use the term "Natural Born Citizens".
Why is this old act significant? This statute was passed by a congress that included members who were *ALSO* authors of the US Constitution - the founding fathers! That is significant in my eyes!"
Dude, not even a good try. There is a HUGE problem with your statement there. It is extremely significant, to use your own words. It is so enormously significant that you will likely be embarrased that you wrote that, or quoted from some armchair Constitutional hack. Ready? Here goes ...
You just said that the Constitution was Amended by an act of Congress.
Full stop.
The principle author of the Constitution who was a member of the 1st Congress sent up twelve Amendments for consideration and eventually released to the state legislatures, ten of which were ratified as the Bill Of Rights, and none of them contained that language you are so thrilled to relay here ( and BTW, which was later significantly changed again not 5 years later ).
Note that they were deliberated in the Congress and then sent to the several States. Then they were deliberated again. Then they were voted on to be ratified or not. The point is that your hypothesis was, well let's just say it, unConstitutional by definition. Congress proposes. They cannot Amend ( thankfully ).
The simple proof would be found in our own yelling and screaming had one of those many leftist progressive socialist communist Congresses in the past 100 years had simply redefined "arms" or "speech" or "possessions" as a quasi-Amendment in the same manner you just endorsed.
Pretty sure this is not a line of argument that Cruz himself would ever pursue since he himself does know a whole lot about the constitution. Can't say the same for some of his supporters though.
“...You just said that the Constitution was Amended by an act of Congress...”
Not sure where you saw “amendment” when I specifically wrote “legislation”. The “Naturalization Act of 1790” has no need to change the Constitution, nor did it seek to. it merely clarifies those who should also be considered NBC per the opinions/arguments of founding fathers during that session of the US Congress.
It establishes a further clarification of NBC at the time of, and by, the founding fathers.
I wrote that congress passed the “Naturalization Act of 1790” (described as “legislation”, *NOT* “amendment*) a mere 3 years after the Constitution was written, said congress including founding fathers who were participants in the writing of the US Constitution.
What you posted debates a made-up point (amendment) that I didn’t write.
I’d be happy to entertain another attempt though. Do you have any other legislative or judicial reference that adds to the understanding of “who” may be considered as a “Natural Born Citizen” that was made by founding fathers at the time the Constitution was written? Perhaps you can show in the US Constitution where it clarifies NBC? Perhaps you can show further legislation (or amendment, if you wish) that reverts that passage from the “Naturalization Act of 1790”?
Until then, I’ll stick with the written, codified, opinions of the founding fathers to understand their intent regarding NBC.
Good Luck with it!